list_scenario_events

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of transparency. It discloses that the operation is a list/filter by scenario and date range, which implies a read-only behavior, but it does not mention pagination, ordering, authorization requirements, or return format. For a simple list tool this is adequate but not rich.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, compact sentence that directly states the tool's action, target, and constraints. Every word is necessary and there is no redundancy or filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is a straightforward filtered-list operation with three well-documented parameters and no output schema. The description sufficiently conveys the core purpose, but it omits details that could be relevant in context, such as what happens with no matching events or whether results are sorted. This is acceptable but not complete enough for a higher score.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter already documented clearly (scenario_id, start_date, end_date). The description only reiterates the date-range and scenario scope, adding no new semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('List') and clearly identifies the resource ('events') scoped to 'a specific scenario within a date range'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_events' by adding scenario and date filtering.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The usage context is implied by the phrasing 'for a specific scenario within a date range'—an agent can infer when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives like 'list_events', so guidance is only implicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.